Tags |
|
|
Links |
|
|
Casual Articles - Introduction to UDRP Disputes
So we all hate having to make telephone appointments, it’s a pretty thankless task at the best of times, but if you learn your craft well, at least you will be out there getting appointments and making things happen. Just remember, if you sell a product worth say 5000 pounds, and it takes you 100 rejections to get that sale, then each of those rejections is worth ?50.00. If you were paid ?50.00 just for getting a NO each time, you’d be on that phone day and night wouldn’t you?These tips are just a few of the many hundreds I could write from my 17 years experience of cold calling and appointment making. Nothing happens without a sale.The tips.1. Be absolutely clear why you are making the call, establish in advance what it is you want to happen, structure the questions around that outcome, remember – sell the appointment, not the product!2. Basic politeness, not false, if you enjoy people, it shows, try to enjoy yourself, you are a specialist in one of life’s most noble professions. be courteous, no matter what’s going on at the other end, you a
Panellists have not strictly applied the requirement that a complainant prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the WIPO guidance says: "while the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the
Your opt-in list is one of the most valuable tools any type of website or internet based company can have. Even for small ventures, such as a niche profit site, an opt-in list is priceless because it helps add money to your bottom line. Think about it, you almost never see a website that doesn’t spam you with pop-ups and opt-in chances from the very moment you enter their site. In fact, one growing trend I’ve seen is that you cannot even access their website unless you first give them an email address. However, an opt-in list benefits you in many other ways as well.A company’s opt-in list allows them to market via email, but more importantly it gets your prospects to raise their hand and tell you that they are interested in whatever it is you are selling. This type of marketing is one of the cheapest forms of lead generation advertising that you can do. Using this method, you can keep your subscriber up-to-date as well as sending them sales materials reworked as useful free information. But be careful… email contact is highly regulated now and you will need
The UDRP was promulgated by ICANN; however, ICANN is not responsible for providing dispute resolution facilities. There are presently four providers accredited fro gTLD disputes: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, the National Arbitration Forum, the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution, and the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center. WIPO and NAF handle the vast majority of the cases.
WIPO was the first UDRP accredited provider, and began providing a domain name arbitration service in 1999. Since then has processed more than 22,000 cases. NAF is based in the US, and many of the complainants who use its services are based in North America. It deals with only slightly fewer cases than WIPO.
Procedural rules
Most of the key procedural rules are set out in the UDRP and the Rules for UDRP published by ICANN. Additional detail can be found in the supplemental rules issued by the dispute resolution service providers.
The procedural rules are straightforward. The complainant files a complaint in the requisite form and pays the up-front fees. The fees vary with the choice of provider, number of domain names at issue and the number of panellists chosen, and range between $1300 and $5000+. After the complaint is filed and the fee paid, a block is put on the domain name preventing transfer for the duration of the proceedings.
The respondent's case is set out in its response, which must be filed within 20 days of the date of receipt of the complaint. If no response is received (a common circumstance) the expert is empowered to consider this as a ground to accept the complainant's arguments. In most cases there will be no opportunity for the complainant to reply to the response.
It usually takes less than 2 months between the filing of a UDRP complaint and the issue of a decision. The remedies available are revocation and transfer or the domain name(s) at issue; the remedy will be implemented by the domain registrar. There is no appeal from a panel decision (unlike, for instance, at Nominet); however, the parties to UDRP proceedings are free to bring legal proceedings at any time.
Substantive rules
Paragraph 4(a) contains the basic rules concerning disputes under the UDRP: "You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present."
In other words, there are three hurdles for a complainant under the UDRP: he must show that he has rights in a relevant mark, that the respondent has no rights/legitimate interests in the domain, and that the domain was acquired/registered in bad faith.
Rights of complainant
The easiest way to demonstrates rights in a trade mark is through a trade mark registration or, better, a portfolio of registrations. However, UDRP panels can usually be persuaded that a complainant has rights where the complainant can show a reasonable amount of actual use of the mark. The more distinctive the unregistered mark, the easier it will be to prove rights in this way.
The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trade mark and the domain name to determine the likelihood of confusion. The content of the website is irrelevant for this particular purpose.
Rights and legitimate interests of respondent
Paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP concerns rights and legitimate interests: "Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."
Panellists have not strictly applied the requirement that a complainant prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the WIPO guidance says: "while the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the o
Think a moment about the journalist and the historian. The former is presenting the new(s) the latter combines the new into a (historic) perspective.If you want to be in the lead with new trends like the innovator you should know the new(s). You should know about all new developments and more important, you should try and proof them. This is more than a single experiment with new technology. Blogging for example is such a new trend, and the innovator (journalist) will experiment with it. Like the investment journalist who is commenting on a financial movement during the day, the innovator will not be able to determine in what direction the trend will go, nor whether the new movement is strong enough to be a real trend.The more conservative investor and entrepreneur will wait to take action on all those pre-trend movements. He wants to value the new movement before betting his money on it. To do this you need to put things into (historic) perspective.The approach of the innovator brings advantage in the sense that he is up to date, and gains hands on
Procedural rules
Most of the key procedural rules are set out in the UDRP and the Rules for UDRP published by ICANN. Additional detail can be found in the supplemental rules issued by the dispute resolution service providers.
The procedural rules are straightforward. The complainant files a complaint in the requisite form and pays the up-front fees. The fees vary with the choice of provider, number of domain names at issue and the number of panellists chosen, and range between $1300 and $5000+. After the complaint is filed and the fee paid, a block is put on the domain name preventing transfer for the duration of the proceedings.
The respondent's case is set out in its response, which must be filed within 20 days of the date of receipt of the complaint. If no response is received (a common circumstance) the expert is empowered to consider this as a ground to accept the complainant's arguments. In most cases there will be no opportunity for the complainant to reply to the response.
It usually takes less than 2 months between the filing of a UDRP complaint and the issue of a decision. The remedies available are revocation and transfer or the domain name(s) at issue; the remedy will be implemented by the domain registrar. There is no appeal from a panel decision (unlike, for instance, at Nominet); however, the parties to UDRP proceedings are free to bring legal proceedings at any time.
Substantive rules
Paragraph 4(a) contains the basic rules concerning disputes under the UDRP: "You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present."
In other words, there are three hurdles for a complainant under the UDRP: he must show that he has rights in a relevant mark, that the respondent has no rights/legitimate interests in the domain, and that the domain was acquired/registered in bad faith.
Rights of complainant
The easiest way to demonstrates rights in a trade mark is through a trade mark registration or, better, a portfolio of registrations. However, UDRP panels can usually be persuaded that a complainant has rights where the complainant can show a reasonable amount of actual use of the mark. The more distinctive the unregistered mark, the easier it will be to prove rights in this way.
The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trade mark and the domain name to determine the likelihood of confusion. The content of the website is irrelevant for this particular purpose.
Rights and legitimate interests of respondent
Paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP concerns rights and legitimate interests: "Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."
Panellists have not strictly applied the requirement that a complainant prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the WIPO guidance says: "while the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the
PR that really does something positive about the behaviors of those outside audiences that most affect your business, non-profit or association?PR that uses its fundamental premise to deliver external stakeholder behavior change – the kind that leads directly to achieving your managerial objectives?PR that persuades those important outside folks to your way of thinking, then moves them to take actions that help your department, division or subsidiary succeed?Get organized and you could be looking at results like these: prospects starting to do business with you; membership applications on the rise; customers starting to make repeat purchases; fresh proposals for strategic alliances and joint ventures; community leaders beginning to seek you out; welcome bounces in show room visits; higher employee retention rates, capital givers or specifying sources beginning to look your way, and even politicians and legislators starting to view you as a key member of the business, non-profit or association communities.And the fundamental premis
Substantive rules
Paragraph 4(a) contains the basic rules concerning disputes under the UDRP: "You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present."
In other words, there are three hurdles for a complainant under the UDRP: he must show that he has rights in a relevant mark, that the respondent has no rights/legitimate interests in the domain, and that the domain was acquired/registered in bad faith.
Rights of complainant
The easiest way to demonstrates rights in a trade mark is through a trade mark registration or, better, a portfolio of registrations. However, UDRP panels can usually be persuaded that a complainant has rights where the complainant can show a reasonable amount of actual use of the mark. The more distinctive the unregistered mark, the easier it will be to prove rights in this way.
The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trade mark and the domain name to determine the likelihood of confusion. The content of the website is irrelevant for this particular purpose.
Rights and legitimate interests of respondent
Paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP concerns rights and legitimate interests: "Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."
Panellists have not strictly applied the requirement that a complainant prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the WIPO guidance says: "while the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the
Futures positions in Indian Markets need be closed on the last Thursday of every month or the expiry month. In case of a holiday on the last Thursday the preceding day would be taken as the closing day.Current Month Futures being the most active we generally take positions in these. Now rolling over these positions need be done incase we need to carry the position for some more time. As there would be a difference in premium or discount for the current month to the next month futures we would need to be careful and a proper strategy need be employed. It would be ideal to shift positions 0-3 days in advance.Long PositionsAt Premium: In case say we are holding Satyam Current Month Futures and the price is 400.00 & Spot price is at 398.00 and next month futures is at 402.00. We need to to watch the intraday trend. Incase it is up we Buy the next month futures say at 402.00 and wait for the up move to generate 2.00 (Or the Difference between the Two) + the commissions payable. Say the commission’s payable on both closing current month futures & entering
Rights of complainant
The easiest way to demonstrates rights in a trade mark is through a trade mark registration or, better, a portfolio of registrations. However, UDRP panels can usually be persuaded that a complainant has rights where the complainant can show a reasonable amount of actual use of the mark. The more distinctive the unregistered mark, the easier it will be to prove rights in this way.
The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trade mark and the domain name to determine the likelihood of confusion. The content of the website is irrelevant for this particular purpose.
Rights and legitimate interests of respondent
Paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP concerns rights and legitimate interests: "Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."
Panellists have not strictly applied the requirement that a complainant prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the WIPO guidance says: "while the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the
Whether you're just entering the workforce or have been entrenched for many years or are creating your own business, the world of work is an intrinsic part of all of our lives. And for a relative few, it's not all about the money.Our lives in the work world can take many transitions:As a teenager just entering the work world, it may be to earn enough money to buy a car, clothes, afford dates and for some, earn tuition into college. And along the way, discover if the type of work is one that appeals enough to continue, or indicates the need to try something else.For others, who have taken a chosen path through college and are preparing to enter the work world, their focus will be following their path into positions for which they've studied. Although it's just as possible that along the way, they may discover a penchant for something entirely different.For those who have been entrenched in the work world for many years, it's quite possible that their initial position(s) and intention(s) may have been shaped or even curtailed by the need to earn
Panellists have not strictly applied the requirement that a complainant prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. As the WIPO guidance says: "while the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests."
Bad faith
Paragraph 4(c) of the UDRP concerns bad faith: "For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location."
If a domain name is registered before the date of the establishment of the complainant's trade mark rights, that fact will usually defeat the complaint on the basis that the registration could not have been in bad faith. There are however limited exceptions to this rule. For example, if a third party registration of a domain name consisting of elements of two different companies' names is prompted by rumours of a corporate merger, that may be enough to constitute bad faith, notwithstanding that there may be no registered or unregistered rights in the new name.
Some panels have found that the passive holding of a domain may be enough to justify a finding of bad faith. In particular, where a trade mark is very famous panels have found it difficult to conclude that the registration could possibly have been in good faith, no matter what the domain name has been used (or not used) for.
Conclusions
In terms of usage, the UDRP must be one of the most successful forms of ADR in legal history. The manifold advantages of the procedure over court litigation - in terms of cost, time and ease of enforcement - mean that it (or its successor policy) will remain a key feature of the domain name system for so long as that system is open to abuse.
The system has not however escaped criticism. The most common complaint is that the substantive rules, the methods of selection of dispute resolution providers and/or the methods of selection of panellists constitute a regime which is systematically biased in favour of trade mark owners and against domain registrants.
HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.casualarticles.com/article/129526/casualarticles-Introduction-to-UDRP-Disputes.html">Introduction to UDRP Disputes</a>
BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.casualarticles.com/article/129526/casualarticles-Introduction-to-UDRP-Disputes.html]Introduction to UDRP Disputes[/url]
Related Articles:
Direct Mail Marketing for Local Clientele for Off Season at Resorts
Real Estate Postcards: Six Ways to Improve Them
Don't Think Your Online Marketing Newsletter Need An Extreme Makeover?
Bookmark it:
|